• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

the book is always better than the movie...

alasdairm

alasdairm

Moderator: S&T
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
66,952
i don't think i can recall ever hearing anybody, in general, argue otherwise.

can you think of a movie which was better than the book upon which it was based?

alasdair
 
the andromeda strain is pretty much dead-on like the book.
 
Not necessarily BETTER than, but more *accessible* than the book(s) - The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I tried but just couldn't read the book.

But in general, yeah - the book shits all over the movie (take any Steven King for example, or Virginia Andrews' 'Flowers in the Attic' *shudder*).

Maybe it's because your mind is the best cinema there is, and the freedom to project your own unique interpretation is far more powerful than one person's vision will ever be.
 
ack. it is pretty much a presistant rule from my own experiences and hearing from others.... the chamber being the one sticking out in my mind right now....

any one thats read and seen... how does the lord of the rings hang with this one?
i have done niether but i would think that perhaps (for some people without a high level of imagination while reading) movies with such complex imagery, sound effects and so on could surpass the experience of reading the book
 
I disagree...the shining (book) was MUCH, MUCH better than the movie, IMO. I think the book is much better than the movie in almost any situation, because you are reading it and you can picture in your head just how YOU personally would see things..and when you see the movie it's always from someone elses view point. It's for this reason I always like to see the movie before I read the book, otherwise the movie is dissapointing.

P.S. "The Lost World" the movie was SO sad compared to the book...there were so many scenes from the book that would have been awesome in a big budget hollywood movie..but they left most of them out. :p
 
i can't think of a movie that was better than the book.

i heard that if a blind person can get their sight back (through surgery or transplant) they are often disappointed with what they see, because the way the world looked in their heads were much more spectacular than how it really is. so i guess it's kind of the same with books and movies. while you're reading a book, you get all these great images of the characters and the action... and no director can ever create a movie that lives up to your expectations. at least that's what i think.
 
Curious Yellow said:
the shining is all that comes to mind

oo oo i got another one... the godfather
Click to expand...

The shining??? The shining???

That's sacrilege, and if you mean the movie version with Jack Nicolson in it than that is even worse...

In my experience the movie is never ever better than the book. If a movie does however does some sort of justice to the book I will not write it off...

The first L.O.T.R. movie did justice, the second didn't...
 
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.

American Psycho the movie was better then American Psycho the book. Well, it was easier. Because the book is steeped with details. And I mean every detail, of every possible thing. Although the "killing" scenes in the movie have nothing on the "killing" scenes in the book. They were so violent and insane...

A Clockwork Orange the book was as good as A Clockwork Orange the movie. Yup, they were about the same. Both really good.
 
Stephen King's books turned to movies are good, but never as good as the books. He writes in a way that allows the imagination to create pictures that could never be captured on film.

This is true for most books IMHO. Something's always lost in the translation.
 
I think that every Steven King movie has been destroyed by hack actors, shitty dialogue and really bad direction. The only exception to this being Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
 
"Stephen King's books turned to movies are good, but never as good as the books."
Click to expand...

Au contraire.

In fact, I'd be shocked to hear an opinion, even King's own opinion, that Rita Heyworth and the Shawshank Redemption held a candle to the film that was robbed of Best Picture by some "Stupid Is As Stupid Does" tripe in 1994.

Other films better than books, IMO:

The Godfather

Rocky
 
asmodeus256 said:
Fight Club the movie was better than Fight Club the book, imho. The book was just a little too slow, whereas the movie was tight-knit and immaculate.

American Psycho the movie was better then American Psycho the book. Well, it was easier. Because the book is steeped with details. And I mean every detail, of every possible thing. Although the "killing" scenes in the movie have nothing on the "killing" scenes in the book. They were so violent and insane...

A Clockwork Orange the book was as good as A Clockwork Orange the movie. Yup, they were about the same. Both really good.
Click to expand...

Fight Club I can almost agree with, but not really, although there isn't really that much between them.

American Psycho. I see your point but I have to disagree. Yes the continual descriptions of what everyone is wearing etc is a little annoying, but everything else is just so much better than the movie.

A Clockwork Orange - No way. Sorry. Yes the movie is good, nay great, but the book is just that much better.

Lord of the Rings - There is absolutely no way that the movies are better than the books. Yes the movies are spectacular and epic in scope, but the books are a fantastic wonderland that can be seen so vivdily in your head that the movies could compare with if each movie went for at least an hour each...

Other than that, there are very very few movies that come even close to the books.
 
Originally posted by FuncrusherPlus
The first Lotr movie did not do justice. They left out Tom Bombadil!!


This was one section they could safely leave out. Tom Bombadil has no effect on any aspect of the Lord of the Rings trilogy outside that one scene...people watching the movie would have been confused. The rest of Fellowship was more or less right on, however the Two Towers was definitely altered.

And anyone that says the LoTR movies are better than the books is off his/her rocker.
 
I disagree. I think movie's is better then the book because I want the plot to move along instead of the author dwelling and staying on a single instance in the book for 3 pages. I have little patience when it comes to fiction. Non fiction is a different story.
 
^^I understand that they left it out for time reasons, but that was a large childhood memory of mine and it disappointed me to hear that they left him out :( . And to Edvard, the book is definitely better than the movie. The point of books is not to summarize the story, and neither should the movie. All that detail in the books brings it to life in your mind. My 2 cents.
 
hrm, tom clancy is one of my favourite authors...
id have to say i liked the movie "the hunt for red october" better then the book, but for the rest of the movies the books are better...
 
Forrest Gump - movie MUCH BETTER than the book.. yuck!!

I also agree, Fight Club the movie is better than the book,

and there is no way in HELL either of the Shining movies could have surpassed the book. I really hated the first one after reading the book. Does it NO justice.

I highly disagree that American Psycho the movie is better than the book. I could not watch the movie. It was dull and boring - I turned it off. The book was fascinating, and fucked up and to me, the movie had neither of those qualities.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top